Okay, I wouldn't be covering this if someone else -- anyone, really -- out there in the MSM would. Seriously. We were subjected to months and months worth of 'Climate Gate' "scandal" stories, and "investigative" reports on what it meant for the general body of climate science (which was pretty simple: nil). But now, in the much longer aftermath of the event, the media has chosen to ignore, over and over again, a key part of the story. Namely, that all of the scientists involved have been cleared of any wrongdoing, and that the science allegedly called into question by the event has found to be untarnished. Now, yet again, the CRU has been cleared by an investigation in the UK. Here's the latest, via Climate Progress:

CRU Cleared Again ...by the UK Gov, in their official Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report of Session 2009-10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The short version: CRU's science is solid, but there are still some issues re the prompt handling of FOIA requests. The longer version is here. My favorite bit:

13. Openness and transparency should be the presumption. That said, there are a number of good reasons why it is not always possible or appropriate to make data available immediately or even at all. In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data (although there is the question of whether they could have gone back to national meteorological societies to get permission to release data).

And another favorite bit:

The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

And there you go -- yet another exoneration from the world's most beleaguered scientists. That the media promptly ignored. Joe Romm laments sardonically:

I can't find any media coverage of the [report]. I think that is because:

1. It re-re-re-re-exonerates climate scientists, and since the media glossed over the first three, why start now? 2. It didn't involve anyone exploding.

True. It's a nothing short of a disgrace that the same media that leaped at the chance to stir controversy and attack climate scientists now refuses to publish the myriad exonerations that have cleared their names.